Google Ads

Hey there! We're an open community that values free speech and free thinking on all topics. If that sounds like you, then login or register. It's free and easy. You can also connect with your FaceBook account. Or you can just comment on anything you find of interest, but your comments will then have to wait for moderation before they show.

Skydiving is risky. People die doing it. That doesn't make it immoral.

WHAT??? So now you're actually telling me you do NOT believe it is immoral for brothers/sisters to have sex even if there is a risk of them producing children with defects??? WOW ... YOU ARE AN EVEN BIGGER *QUACK* THAN I THOUGHT, RICHARD. In that case, it logically follows that UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY, there is nothing morally wrong with Joe Blow having consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER (with no need of any vasectomies or tubes tied)!!! This is according to YOUR own moral theory. You KNOW your moral theory ALLOWS for all sorts of bizarre sexual filth, which is why you're trying to accuse me of being the freakazoid when I'm simply stating *FACTS* regarding what your moral theory logically ALLOWS. And your skydiving analogy is garbage ...

A skydiver places a risk of harm ON HIMSELF (or herself). Everyone has the right to place themselves under whatever risk they want. A brother/sister having sex risks putting harm ON ANOTHER PERSON.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

There is no evidence that it was intended for a finite time. You just made that up out of your own imagination to defend your ludicrous dogmas about your ludicrous gawd.

Wow ... You lied AGAIN. What a surprise. The Mosaic law put a ban on brother/sister marriages. So OBVIOUSLY it was INTENDED for a finite time.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Even if your excuse were true, that wouldn't make it immoral. The fact that there is supposedly no longer a "need" for incest does not imply that incest is now immoral. How freaking lame is your brain?!?

Hey IDIOT ... Is it morally wrong for a mother to breastfeed her baby??? NO, YOU LOON!!! Is it morally wrong for a grown man to suck on his mother's nipples??? YES, YOU LOON!!! Why? Because THE PURPOSE THAT IS SERVED IN BREASTFEEDING THE BABY HAS ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED (nourishment of the infant with breast milk)!!! *LIKEWISE*, the purpose that was served in allowing for brother/sister marriages has been fulfilled (namely, the purpose of producing a single universal brotherhood of mankind in a very real way AND the purpose of multiplying the human family until brother/sister marriages were not needed).

Let it be known throughout the holy cosmos (now and forevermore) that under the moral theory of these APEtheists/QUACKnostics, it LOGICALLY follows that there is nothing morally wrong with Carlos having consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER. Further, under their moral theory, it LOGICALLY follows that there is nothing morally wrong with Susan or Sandy having consenting sex WITH THEIR OWN MOTHERS. They *KNOW* this, which is why they are trying to take the attention away from those *FACTS* and resort to attacking me.

I am Gambini and I assure you that I am NOT a "piece" of shit (in fact, I am the WHOLE shit and nothing BUT the shit).

Hey IDIOT ... Is it morally wrong for a mother to breastfeed her baby??? NO, YOU LOON!!! Is it morally wrong for a grown man to suck on his mother's nipples??? YES, YOU LOON!!! Why? Because THE PURPOSE THAT IS SERVED IN BREASTFEEDING THE BABY HAS ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED (nourishment of the infant with breast milk)!!! *LIKEWISE*, the purpose that was served in allowing for brother/sister marriages has been fulfilled (namely, the purpose of producing a single universal brotherhood of mankind in a very real way AND the purpose of multiplying the human family until brother/sister marriages were not needed).

I am Gambini and I assure you that I am NOT a "piece" of shit (in fact, I am the WHOLE shit and nothing BUT the shit).

It seems like what you are saying is sex is for one purpose only and that is to produce offspring, so if a husband has a vasectomy or a wife has her tubes tied, they are committing an immoral act every time they have sex.

It seems like what you are saying is sex is for one purpose only and that is to produce offspring, so if a husband has a vasectomy or a wife has her tubes tied, they are committing an immoral act every time they have sex.

I have no idea how you got that from anything I've said. I never said the ONLY purpose for sex was to produce children. That would be like saying the ONLY reason to eat is to sustain our lives. Just like we can enjoy our food, we can enjoy sex with our marital partners.

Is it morally wrong for a grown man to suck on his mother's nipples??? YES, YOU LOON!!! Why? Because THE PURPOSE THAT IS SERVED IN BREASTFEEDING THE BABY HAS ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED (nourishment of the infant with breast milk)!!! *LIKEWISE*, the purpose that was served in allowing for brother/sister marriages has been fulfilled (namely, the purpose of producing a single universal brotherhood of mankind in a very real way AND the purpose of multiplying the human family until brother/sister marriages were not needed).

I have no idea how you got that from anything I've said. I never said the ONLY purpose for sex was to produce children. That would be like saying the ONLY reason to eat is to sustain our lives. Just like we can enjoy our food, we can enjoy sex with our marital partners.

BINI

Well, I got the idea from you when you said that it was morally wrong for a man to suck on breasts, because the purpose of breasts was for producing milk for babies, and you also said that its morally wrong for brothers and sisters to have sex, except when god allowed it for reproductive purposes.

You know we do have to eat to sustain our lives, but we don't have to have sex